|
On January 24 2012 08:13 Sadist wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 05:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2012 05:18 s4life wrote:On January 24 2012 01:30 xDaunt wrote:
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style. I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh. Oh believe me, I'm painfully aware of Newt's limitations. In fact, I have openly remarked that there is no guarantee that Newt would be any more conservative than Romney as a president. As for the corruption charges, is Obama really any different? So many of Obama's policies and actions, ranging from his green energy initiatives to the way that the auto-bailouts were handled, reek of corruption. explain?
Rather than letting the companies go through a regular Chapter 11 bankruptcy, he rigged the process to protect union pension plans and give the UAW a huge equity stake. Oh, and let's not forget about pushing the absolute failure of a vehicle that the Chevy Volt is.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 24 2012 08:24 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:12 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 08:03 Pillage wrote:On January 24 2012 07:56 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 07:49 Pillage wrote: am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever.
what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike? Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it. you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money... You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find. I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up. lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome... edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ... I sure hope you are trolling... @Whitewing: There are many cases where left-wing policies of redistributing wealth through socialist policies does not work. What should be argued here is not whether or not to help the poor (which is a cop-out straw man), but how is the best method to go about doing it. As it stands right now, people are out of work and 47 million Americans are on foodstamps, that is a lot.
Do you even know what socialism is? Why is it that anytime someone suggests raising taxes on those who have the most (and will STILL HAVE THE MOST AFTERWARDS) it gets called 'socialist'? What, is it bad to help the poor out who don't earn enough money?
Oh, I have an idea, let's slash the military budget, it's the largest in the world by a landslide, oh wait, the republicans don't want to do that either. Instead, they want to cut welfare programs that help those who have the least, 'cause fuck the poor, they don't deserve a good standard of living, clearly they must be poor because they don't try!
Best way to go about it is what they tried, but too bad the Republican congress demanded the stimulus bill be slashed to a fraction of what it was, (many reviews determined it was too small to succeed after it passed, but likely would have worked had it been larger). To stimulate the economy and create job growth, there is exactly one thing to do: stimulate demand for products.
|
On January 24 2012 08:23 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:12 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 08:03 Pillage wrote:On January 24 2012 07:56 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 07:49 Pillage wrote: am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever.
what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike? Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it. you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money... You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find. I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up. lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome... edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ... Don't be ridiculous, nobody in life gambles 20k at a payout of 2000:1, where the hell are you getting these numbers? That isn't at all how the system works.
and even if best rates 200:1 or 20:1 what does it matter ? but im pretty sure that you could take way higher bets...
isnt the point of all this that rich people have it easy to get richer while poor people are having a hard time and times are getting even harder ?
i am realy sorry that i cant provide you with that program... i dont even know what exactly we did there... all i know is that we pushed some buttons and made a check on sell at 2 million, shut down the pc and went to party... came back and everything worked out fine ? i can only imageine what a guy realy into all that stuff is able to do...
and as i said before i have not the slightes clue about any system of anything regarding money/economie ... i am a biologist and i am interested in brains :D
|
On January 24 2012 08:10 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:08 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On January 24 2012 08:03 Whitewing wrote:
Trickle down economics is a pejorative term used to make fun of Reaganomics, the idea that by making the rich richer everyone else benefits. This is not the case. The bottom 50% earners of this country control a whopping 2% of the total wealth in the entire nation. That's incredibly bad, and it's because of trickle down economics. No, making the rich richer doesn't help others. This ridiculous policy does not work, it's merely the rich exerting their incredible amount of influence to pass laws to make themselves richer. No half intelligent economist takes this seriously anymore, after years and years of data of it NOT working. And I tell you that as an economist myself. The idea is ridiculous.
And increasing taxes on the wealthy (specifically taxing long term capital gains at the same rate as income, and don't give me this horseshit about them not investing anymore, they'll invest as long as they can make a profit doing it, what will they do, sit on the money?) is not the same thing as "OH LET'S DRAIN THE RICH FOR ALL THEY HAVE AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR!" Newsflash, the rich will still be rich.
SoLaR, your father isn't in the 1%, don't kid yourself. 400 employees is nothing, and to the 1%, 50% of their salary is a drop in the bucket and hardly noticeable, since they make all their money in long term capital gains, while they sit twiddling their thumbs. Yes, with a salary of $525,000, he is in the 1%. You can look up precisely what percentile that equates to. Maybe you think that's not the case because your 1% is just a bullshit pejorative for a group of people who have been successful financially. Your claims are born out of envy. At least direct that envy towards my father's work ethic rather than the capital he has earned. When I say 1%, I'm referring to wealth, not income. It has nothing to do with salary, salary is nothing. Net income including things like long term capital gains is a much better indicator.
No one refers to the top 1% that way. Whenever democrats start preaching about the good policy of raising the highest tax bracket, they are talking about raising taxes on people who earn $250,000+ per year, who are by no means "rich."
|
On January 24 2012 08:34 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:13 Sadist wrote:On January 24 2012 05:38 xDaunt wrote:On January 24 2012 05:18 s4life wrote:On January 24 2012 01:30 xDaunt wrote:
As a republican, let me explain why republicans are drawn to Newt. As a result of George W Bush years, we republicans have developed a bit of an inferiority complex regarding our politicians -- specifically their inability to cleanly articulate conservative principles and ideals. In other words, we're tired of our politicians looking like idiots. We know that conservative values, when properly articulated, are incredibly powerful and popular. We've seen it before (Reagan), and we know there are people today who can articulate it very well (Rush Limbaugh is particularly good at this).
Of the candidates, Gingrich articulates conservative values better than anyone (when he chooses to). I've remarked multiple times in this thread that Gingrich is the smartest guy on the stage at any of the debates, and I can't imagine how anyone can still doubt this after the last debate. Republicans look at Gingrich and see a guy who actually can talk the talk. Hell, Gingrich even knows that this is why people are drawn to him. Why do you think he keeps mentioning that he's the guy to debate Obama and is always mentioning the Lincoln/Douglas debates? He's playing on the desire of republican voters to have a smart-sounding candidate.
If you compare Newt to any of other candidates, none of them can hold a candle to his eloquence. Romney is passionless and equivocating. Paul is just a little too crazy. Santorum is an asshole. We'll see how this plays out, but republicans clearly like Newt's style. I think Newt will only guarantee Obama to be reelected, he has zero chance in the general imho.. smart is too big a word for him, he times well the use of slapstick rhetoric and bullies himself out of disadvantageous positions on stage with flair, but that hardly is qualification to be called smart or to be president material... I mean the guy is a poster child for the crook, immoral, hypocritical and deceptive politicians everywhere, he's not even a conservative heh. Oh believe me, I'm painfully aware of Newt's limitations. In fact, I have openly remarked that there is no guarantee that Newt would be any more conservative than Romney as a president. As for the corruption charges, is Obama really any different? So many of Obama's policies and actions, ranging from his green energy initiatives to the way that the auto-bailouts were handled, reek of corruption. explain? Rather than letting the companies go through a regular Chapter 11 bankruptcy, he rigged the process to protect union pension plans and give the UAW a huge equity stake. Oh, and let's not forget about pushing the absolute failure of a vehicle that the Chevy Volt is.
Being from Michigan.......I don't blame people at being pissed about the buyouts with how horribly stupid the people who ran GM and Chrysler were for 2 decades. Still though, at least the automakers produce goods. The banks produce nothing. I do agree with you on the UAW though, sadly  .
But hey, at least Chrysler is doing well 
|
On January 24 2012 08:35 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:24 allecto wrote:On January 24 2012 08:12 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 08:03 Pillage wrote:On January 24 2012 07:56 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 07:49 Pillage wrote: am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever.
what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike? Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it. you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money... You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find. I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up. lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome... edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ... I sure hope you are trolling... @Whitewing: There are many cases where left-wing policies of redistributing wealth through socialist policies does not work. What should be argued here is not whether or not to help the poor (which is a cop-out straw man), but how is the best method to go about doing it. As it stands right now, people are out of work and 47 million Americans are on foodstamps, that is a lot. Do you even know what socialism is? Why is it that anytime someone suggests raising taxes on those who have the most (and will STILL HAVE THE MOST AFTERWARDS) it gets called 'socialist'? What, is it bad to help the poor out who don't earn enough money? Oh, I have an idea, let's slash the military budget, it's the largest in the world by a landslide, oh wait, the republicans don't want to do that either. Instead, they want to cut welfare programs that help those who have the least, 'cause fuck the poor, they don't deserve a good standard of living, clearly they must be poor because they don't try! Best way to go about it is what they tried, but too bad the Republican congress demanded the stimulus bill be slashed to a fraction of what it was, (many reviews determined it was too small to succeed after it passed, but likely would have worked had it been larger). To stimulate the economy and create job growth, there is exactly one thing to do: stimulate demand for products.
Welfare and foodstamps are welfare-state policies that often are ineffectual (edited out socialist)...
And yes, let's take on trillions and trillions more of debt, that's exactly what we need. I'm all for raising taxes and slashing the military. You don't have to get all upset about it. And it's not like our tax system is "fuck the poor;" last time I checked it was a progressive tax system. And yes, I know that there are ways to get around that, so raise capital gains tax and get rid of loopholes. But, just dumping money on the poor isn't going to solve anything.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 24 2012 08:36 xDaunt wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:10 Whitewing wrote:On January 24 2012 08:08 SoLaR[i.C] wrote:On January 24 2012 08:03 Whitewing wrote:
Trickle down economics is a pejorative term used to make fun of Reaganomics, the idea that by making the rich richer everyone else benefits. This is not the case. The bottom 50% earners of this country control a whopping 2% of the total wealth in the entire nation. That's incredibly bad, and it's because of trickle down economics. No, making the rich richer doesn't help others. This ridiculous policy does not work, it's merely the rich exerting their incredible amount of influence to pass laws to make themselves richer. No half intelligent economist takes this seriously anymore, after years and years of data of it NOT working. And I tell you that as an economist myself. The idea is ridiculous.
And increasing taxes on the wealthy (specifically taxing long term capital gains at the same rate as income, and don't give me this horseshit about them not investing anymore, they'll invest as long as they can make a profit doing it, what will they do, sit on the money?) is not the same thing as "OH LET'S DRAIN THE RICH FOR ALL THEY HAVE AND GIVE IT TO THE POOR!" Newsflash, the rich will still be rich.
SoLaR, your father isn't in the 1%, don't kid yourself. 400 employees is nothing, and to the 1%, 50% of their salary is a drop in the bucket and hardly noticeable, since they make all their money in long term capital gains, while they sit twiddling their thumbs. Yes, with a salary of $525,000, he is in the 1%. You can look up precisely what percentile that equates to. Maybe you think that's not the case because your 1% is just a bullshit pejorative for a group of people who have been successful financially. Your claims are born out of envy. At least direct that envy towards my father's work ethic rather than the capital he has earned. When I say 1%, I'm referring to wealth, not income. It has nothing to do with salary, salary is nothing. Net income including things like long term capital gains is a much better indicator. No one refers to the top 1% that way. Whenever democrats start preaching about the good policy of raising the highest tax bracket, they are talking about raising taxes on people who earn $250,000+ per year, who are by no means "rich."
Now you know why I don't like Obama or the democrats very much either.
This is what I'm talking about though.
|
United States7483 Posts
On January 24 2012 08:40 allecto wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:35 Whitewing wrote:On January 24 2012 08:24 allecto wrote:On January 24 2012 08:12 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 08:03 Pillage wrote:On January 24 2012 07:56 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 07:49 Pillage wrote: am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever.
what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike? Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it. you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money... You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find. I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up. lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome... edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ... I sure hope you are trolling... @Whitewing: There are many cases where left-wing policies of redistributing wealth through socialist policies does not work. What should be argued here is not whether or not to help the poor (which is a cop-out straw man), but how is the best method to go about doing it. As it stands right now, people are out of work and 47 million Americans are on foodstamps, that is a lot. Do you even know what socialism is? Why is it that anytime someone suggests raising taxes on those who have the most (and will STILL HAVE THE MOST AFTERWARDS) it gets called 'socialist'? What, is it bad to help the poor out who don't earn enough money? Oh, I have an idea, let's slash the military budget, it's the largest in the world by a landslide, oh wait, the republicans don't want to do that either. Instead, they want to cut welfare programs that help those who have the least, 'cause fuck the poor, they don't deserve a good standard of living, clearly they must be poor because they don't try! Best way to go about it is what they tried, but too bad the Republican congress demanded the stimulus bill be slashed to a fraction of what it was, (many reviews determined it was too small to succeed after it passed, but likely would have worked had it been larger). To stimulate the economy and create job growth, there is exactly one thing to do: stimulate demand for products. Welfare and foodstamps are socialist policies...
Don't be ridiculous.
|
On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal.
You don't. At all.
|
On January 24 2012 08:41 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:40 allecto wrote:On January 24 2012 08:35 Whitewing wrote:On January 24 2012 08:24 allecto wrote:On January 24 2012 08:12 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 08:03 Pillage wrote:On January 24 2012 07:56 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 07:49 Pillage wrote: am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever.
what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike? Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it. you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money... You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find. I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up. lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome... edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ... I sure hope you are trolling... @Whitewing: There are many cases where left-wing policies of redistributing wealth through socialist policies does not work. What should be argued here is not whether or not to help the poor (which is a cop-out straw man), but how is the best method to go about doing it. As it stands right now, people are out of work and 47 million Americans are on foodstamps, that is a lot. Do you even know what socialism is? Why is it that anytime someone suggests raising taxes on those who have the most (and will STILL HAVE THE MOST AFTERWARDS) it gets called 'socialist'? What, is it bad to help the poor out who don't earn enough money? Oh, I have an idea, let's slash the military budget, it's the largest in the world by a landslide, oh wait, the republicans don't want to do that either. Instead, they want to cut welfare programs that help those who have the least, 'cause fuck the poor, they don't deserve a good standard of living, clearly they must be poor because they don't try! Best way to go about it is what they tried, but too bad the Republican congress demanded the stimulus bill be slashed to a fraction of what it was, (many reviews determined it was too small to succeed after it passed, but likely would have worked had it been larger). To stimulate the economy and create job growth, there is exactly one thing to do: stimulate demand for products. Welfare and foodstamps are socialist policies... Don't be ridiculous.
Semantic error on my part. Regardless, that's not what I'm arguing.
|
On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all.
Good try troll.
|
Canada11607 Posts
It's more than semantics though. It changes the tone of debate in America when things like 'socialist' get's thrown around loosely. From an outsider's perspective, it seems like needlessly antagonistic rhetoric that creates more heat than light. That's one issue I think Jon Stewart is bang on regardless of his left-leaning. The rhetoric itself has reaches fevered pitch that makes it difficult to debate down there. Simply because "socialist" is associated with 'communists' which were the bad guys in the USSR, the evil empire US was fighting against.
There's been a couple Red Scares in the west and I think the word "socialist" carries a lot of emotional weight behind it.
|
On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll.
He's right though. Your arguements are almost all based on a strict pattern without taking into any account of outside variables.
|
On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll.
I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101.
|
On January 24 2012 08:41 Whitewing wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:40 allecto wrote:On January 24 2012 08:35 Whitewing wrote:On January 24 2012 08:24 allecto wrote:On January 24 2012 08:12 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 08:03 Pillage wrote:On January 24 2012 07:56 SpecialM wrote:On January 24 2012 07:49 Pillage wrote: am able, and by no way i have the slightes clue about economie and how it works nor about banking, but i can turn 20k into 2 million dollars in 10 minutes. all i have to do is to download a shitty programm, watch the news and bet on whatever.
what about u giving me 20k and i invest into adiddas or nike? Lets see you try that then and come back in 10 minuets as a multi-millionaire. Good luck, you're probably going to need it. you didnt get it... its not about luck but about the predictions that you are able to make... if you have the money and dont need to worry about 20k you can easily have a rate 2000:1 on certain bets... worst case cenario is, you have put a barrel of oil infront of someones house if he doesnt accept money... or you have to buy a part of italy or spain and give it to the one you owe the money... You act like there in no punishment for making improper decisions regarding investments. A bad investment has far more repercussions then someone simply refusing to buy your product when you operate in a competitive market. 2000:1 on certain bets in the market????? No way, that doesn't happen, If that was the case and that didn't happen there would be no profit for anyone on that because the incredible demand for this transaction would lower the overall profit for everyone. The market rarely ever works that way. And if someone is smart enough to find these things for themselves, I don't care if they make money on them, because logic says that the opportunity that pays that well must be very, very difficult to find. I am so sick of the mentality that finance guys can pull rabbits out of their hats at will and make a fortune out of nothing. That really doesn't happen unless you're insider trading and doing a ton of other illegal shit. If it's so easy, you go do it and make a ton of money. Maybe when you have a bunch you'll realize it's not very fun when big brother comes knocking at your door, puts a gun to your head and makes you pay up. lets say it like that... i was atr a friends house and we were playing around with some program, i dont know the name but tomorrow i will provide you with link or the name or whatever my friend has to say ... we bet 20k on some shit regarding italy while some stuff about the european safety parachute was being discussed or whatever in eu parlaiment. we went to party ... as we came back we were millionaires... needless to say this was fictional capital but everything else where real interest rates and what ever there is... this is my personal experience as a total noobie... everything we did was reading some news and the predicted outcome... edit: and i was not referring to "some financial guys" but to private persons that have money to give to finance guys to make the money. maybe it was just luck ... I sure hope you are trolling... @Whitewing: There are many cases where left-wing policies of redistributing wealth through socialist policies does not work. What should be argued here is not whether or not to help the poor (which is a cop-out straw man), but how is the best method to go about doing it. As it stands right now, people are out of work and 47 million Americans are on foodstamps, that is a lot. Do you even know what socialism is? Why is it that anytime someone suggests raising taxes on those who have the most (and will STILL HAVE THE MOST AFTERWARDS) it gets called 'socialist'? What, is it bad to help the poor out who don't earn enough money? Oh, I have an idea, let's slash the military budget, it's the largest in the world by a landslide, oh wait, the republicans don't want to do that either. Instead, they want to cut welfare programs that help those who have the least, 'cause fuck the poor, they don't deserve a good standard of living, clearly they must be poor because they don't try! Best way to go about it is what they tried, but too bad the Republican congress demanded the stimulus bill be slashed to a fraction of what it was, (many reviews determined it was too small to succeed after it passed, but likely would have worked had it been larger). To stimulate the economy and create job growth, there is exactly one thing to do: stimulate demand for products. Welfare and foodstamps are socialist policies... Don't be ridiculous.
They are both based on the illogical and immoral idea that some centrally planned 'authority' has greater claim to ones money/livelihood than that person themself. It's a valid connection.
|
On January 24 2012 08:54 Falling wrote:
It's more than semantics though. It changes the tone of debate in America when things like 'socialist' get's thrown around loosely. From an outsider's perspective, it seems like needlessly antagonistic rhetoric that creates more heat than light. That's one issue I think Jon Stewart is bang on regardless of his left-leaning. The rhetoric itself has reaches fevered pitch that makes it difficult to debate down there. Simply because "socialist" is associated with 'communists' which were the bad guys in the USSR, the evil empire US was fighting against.
There's been a couple Red Scares in the west and I think the word "socialist" carries a lot of emotional weight behind it.
Fair enough. It gets tossed around so much,that I suppose I used it without really meaning it; I'll go back and edit.
|
On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101.
Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Canada11607 Posts
@allecto
Which I think is more a reflection of contemporary political discourse than it is specifically on you. It is tossed around quite a bit which makes it quite frustrating when trying to find any sort of common ground.
|
Why is anyone still bothering to reply to Hider? lol
User was warned for this post
|
On January 24 2012 09:04 Hider wrote:Show nested quote +On January 24 2012 08:57 kwizach wrote:On January 24 2012 08:52 Hider wrote:On January 24 2012 08:47 kwizach wrote:On January 23 2012 07:46 Hider wrote:On January 23 2012 07:42 nam nam wrote:
Haven't you already had this discussion or is it just me having a strong case of deja vu? Yeh but a lot of people dont understand economics. No big deal. You don't. At all. Good try troll. I'm not trolling. By your own admission, the only academic exposure you've had to economics is "one course you took some time ago". All your posts are based on dismissing empirical and historical evidence and pushing forward supposedly "common-sense" arguments that would get you laughed out of Economics 101. Eh. Your wrong about everything. First I never said I only had taken a microeconomic course. I said I have taken a microeconomic course. But education is completely irrelevant. You dont learn to understand economics by being able to do math equations, and you dont proof anything by empirical results. You can only find historical correlations between 2 factors where you most likely has a lot of assumptions included. This isn't evidence.
You're a poster child for the importance of education. Any economic textbook, or even economic history textbook, would suffice to destroy the mountain of assumptions and pseudo-common-sense fallacies every post of yours is based on.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
